Just about a year ago, the familiar refrain leading up to the 2012 US Presidential Election boiled down to the basic tenet of American conservatism vs. progressivism: how much should the government take care of its people? More specifically, how “big” should the national government be, and what should be its role in the everyday lives of the country’s citizens? One of the major themes of the Republican National Convention was “We Built That”, an ethic encompassing the idea of personal empowerment–that individuals and businesses are capable of quite a lot on their own. It rejected the idea that “no man is an island”, insisting that hard work and determination are the only necessary ingredients for sustained success in the United States. A parallel theme of the parasitic “entitlement class” also took shape. Although every Republican would love to forget Mitt Romney’s “47%” comment, it’s instructive. It underscored and perpetuated the belief of millions of people that a large portion of American society is comprised of freeloaders. The “builders” work hard to make this country great, and the “moochers” suck it dry without contributing anything of value.

These themes are straight out of the RNC play book. Many Republican strategists still hold these beliefs. They argue that “smaller government” benefits us all. Who needs regulations? Let Wall Street run rampant. Dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency! Those nice corporations–after all, they’re “people”, just like you and me–would never overpollute the air water.

Well, those same leaders who have so strongly espoused the “builder” mentality have become the destroyers. In a purely self-indulgent, crybaby way, they held the entire country hostage. Make no mistake. This is not hyperbole, and it’s not a partisan view. Because a few select Congresspeople (mostly self-professed Tea Party Republicans) decided they hated President Obama, or the Affordable Care Act, or any accomplishment President Obama stood for, SO much, they decided to convince the rest of their caucus in the House to tie any budget bill to the defunding of the law they so lovingly call “Obamacare”. What the hell is this? They knew the president would not dismantle his “signature achievement”. They knew that the new fiscal year began on the same day that Americans could start registering for exchanges on the new healthcare plan. So why not put two and two together? They voted 45 times to repeal the ACA! The Democratic-led Senate turned it down or didn’t even bring it up for a vote all of these times because if you feed the trolls, they just bother you more. President Obama would not sign a bill “gutting” the ACA. The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the law. President Obama won reelection, campaigning on the passage of the ACA. Public opinion polls consistently state that Americans feel favorably about the new healthcare law. If all of this weren’t enough, anecdotal evidence from people whose lives were saved due to provisions in the new law speak much more convincingly than those who don’t want to pay for it or who decide it’s government overreach.

I’m not going to get into an in depth discussion of the Affordable Care Act here, but the backbone of the legislation–the individual mandate–is a long-promoted REPUBLICAN idea. It is based on the principle of individual responsibility. Republicans hate moochers, remember? Progressives aren’t thrilled with the idea that the system is nowhere near a single payer (national healthcare) system, and there are quite a few issues with it; however, a minority of people can’t just do whatever they want to get rid of a law they don’t like because they “think it’s a bad law”. Too bad.

Those Tea Party Republicans in the House–who are mostly ideological people from small towns who have never held office before, and have no idea how the government works–were buoyed by more visible people such as fellow Senate newcomer and all-around attention whore Ted Cruz.
They pushed the country into a partial government shutdown. (I’m going to include a post on a government shutdown primer since not everyone knows what the shutdown entails.)

This has grave consequences for the country. True “patriots” would never do such a thing, and especially for purposes of bald self-interest. And in many cases, the term “self-interest” is completely apropos since some conservative Congress members are very worried about primaries in their gerrymandered districts posed by even more ultra-conservative candidates put up by ridiculously wealthy donors whose money (“speech”) can be spent nearly unfettered thanks to our lovely Supreme Court, whose justices, as we know, are ALWAYS looking out for the best interests of the people.

The government shutdown, now in it’s 11th day, shouldn’t have happened at all. We’re getting closer and closer to the date at which the national debt ceiling must be raised. As has been repeated constantly, paying off the debt is paying for costs already incurred. The county had to pay for money it already spent. Deciding to default (as some Republicans would like to do) is irresponsible at best, and ridiculous and disastrous at worst. The United States has never defaulted on its debt in its history, and the majority opinion on doing so is that this could very possibly equal a worldwide economic recession or depression, plus countless other terrible ramifications.

Republicans who claim that it’s now time to examine the dangerous path of ballooning deficit and the exploding debt (here’s looking at you, John Boehner), really have audacity. If they were so concerned about the economy, they wouldn’t have set in motion a government shutdown that has cost the country billions if dollars, and put nearly a million directly out of work. They wouldn’t play a game of brinkmanship with the possibility of default if the president and Democrats don’t agree to their ridiculous demands of significantly cutting entitlement programs.

Senate Democrats have already agreed to a compromise with House Republicans to pass a budget with spending at the levels House Republicans wanted (continuing the sequester), and “Speaker” Boehner reneged on his deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Boehner admitted this to George Stephanopoulos. Democrats already compromised with Republicans! “Piecemeal” legislative efforts by the Republicans or blaming Democrats and the president in front of National Parks and monuments for their closures as PR stunts are not “compromises” by the Republicans.

This is their fault. And they wanted it this way.

The once-proud “builders” are happy to set the fire, and to stand there and watch it burn.

Members of Congress continue to receive paychecks even as “nonessential” government workers do not, and the city of Washington, D.C. goes unfunded. Worse yet, members of Congress receive the gold standard in healthcare plans, and to date, no Congress member has turned this down. The people can pay for their perks, but not get paid or receive healthcare at an even slightly diminished cost?

I’m pretty sure that’s called mooching. What entitles the select few to receive benefits when others work hard? What ENTITLES them? Many of them aren’t even working for their constituents!

Susan Rice is being tapped as Obama’s new National Security Adviser to replace Tom Donilon. Undoubtedly, there will be uproar from Republicans at this after the much hyped-up (much ado about nothing) Secretary of State debacle of a few months ago. In case you forgot, many Republicans (both senators and media) personalities waged an all-out war against Susan Rice, the then-likely next Secretary of State, tarnishing her name after, as then US Ambassador to the UN, she reported what was later found out to be false information on the September 11, 2012 US embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya. Republicans vowed not to vote for her, bullying her into stepping out of the running. Voila! Now we have Secrekerry aka Secretary of State John Kerry, a person senators such as John McCain respect and feel comfortable with in the position–despite Kerry being a Democrat. The Susan Rice witch hunt can be viewed as a prelude to the Chuck Hagel–a person John McCain did not much respect or feel comfortable with in the position despite his being a Republican and co-chair of McCain’s 2000 Presidential campaign–witch hunt. (Crazy Republicans, tricks are for kids!) Somehow, miraculously, Chuck Hagel passed grueling confirmation hearings to become the current Secretary of Defense.

Anyway, getting back to the original story: the prospect of Susan Rice as National Security Adviser is bound to cause strife after the Susan-Rice-as-Secretary-of-State-debacle. I think this strategy to make her National Security Adviser is brilliant, however, from a political standpoint. If Republicans decide to wage unreasonable opposition yet again, Democrats–and the White House–can remind them of another Rice in the position of National Security Adviser. That Rice, Condoleezza, propagated tons of false and skewed intelligence information that led the United States into an almost 9 year war with Iraq. Oops. Thousands of US lives were lost and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. But 4 dead Americans in Benghazi, you say! What about the 13 embassy bombings under Bush’s watch? What about all the innocent people who died due to a drawn out war that we KNOW was a mistake? We’re not supposed to talk about that.

Anyway, the post of National Security Adviser does not require Senate Confirmation. There may be a lot of bellyaching from Republicans, but they’ll have to suck it up. I take issue with Susan Rice for other reasons, but the way Republicans used her for target practice in their crazed spree/politicization of the Benghazi terror attack is more than unbecoming. It is shameful. Good for Obama. Good for Rice. Perhaps bad for the country in the short term as the media whips a non-story into the next (non) controversy with wall-to-wall coverage. It will be fun to see Fox News in a tizzy, though. You almost can’t blame many of these politicians and their talking heads–when your “policy” initiatives in the Congress include such recent actions as voting to repeal “Obamacare” for the 37th time and defunding the now 3 years-defunct ACORN, using taxpayer money to do so–you need flashy distractions. Without the illusion of the Great Oz, all you have is a scared, deceptive man behind a curtain.

Susan Rice will be the next National Security Adviser. The Republicans will whine and stamp their feet. They’d do better to focus on actual policy. Didn’t they learn the lesson of 2012? Had enough Americans responded to their childish tactics, and voted for Mitt Romney as president, they wouldn’t be in this position today.

I’m writing this with the perspective of having seen both the first presidential debate and the vice presidential debate. I’d like to comment on the veracity of both.

I hope that anyone who reads this post will watch tomorrow night’s debate through a pretty straightforward lens. My main criterion is very simple: Support the candidate who tells you the truth. I know, it seems like a tall order. It shouldn’t, though. If both major party candidates lie tomorrow night, both should be admonished. While the candidates—and every politician—is ultimately responsible for what he or she says, the environment should not exist in which certain behavior (e.g., lying) is not only expected, but encouraged.

For some time, there has been a not so tacit acceptance that politicians lie. For at least as long as there have been politicians, the cynical belief that you can’t trust someone who seeks to attain and maintain power has been stubbornly cemented into the collective consciousness. To an extent, this ethic may be true. It is a logical extension of human nature, and has certainly been borne out by empirical observation.

The idea that a politician can lie to get ahead, that a person can—and should—lie to the very people he or she hopes to serve is not ok.

It is not the world of 1984. There is no (official) Ministry of Truth, passing off falsehoods as fact. Politicians and members of the media are responsible for disseminating true statements, not self-serving lies.

On October 4, Dana Milbank, widely read columnist for The Washington Post, said something shocking on Martin Bashir’s show on MSNBC. Bashir asked Milbank to explain an article he had written, defending Romney’s debate performance. Milbank ended up admitting that, yes, Romney did lie on countless occasions during the debate. He had no reason to believe that these lies were not deliberate deceptions intended to win the debate. Essentially, facts be damned. When pressed further by Bashir on the major ethical issues of running for the highest office in the country, and how such action certainly undercuts legitimacy, Milbank said that Obama “let him lie”, and that that’s how you play the game. Milbank said that after he watched over 20 Republican primary debates, he didn’t see how “you would expect anything different”. Milbank maintained that lying is fine and, in Romney’s case was an advantageous move. He thinks Romney owes the country nothing, and basically said that the ball is in Obama’s court to disprove Romney’s lies. Both Bashir and Milbank agreed on Romney’s “litany of lies”. Milbank saw no problem with these lies. Not only was he complicit in this disgusting system; he praised Romney in both a widely circulated newspaper editorial and on national television.

People should be very upset. The onus, however, should not be on every person to fact check every statement. Everyone should be informed, and people like me do fact check political statements, but no one should have to expect that lies are the default position. What are journalists for? Where is the media? Oh, right, certain members—the Dana Milbanks of the media—are not doing their jobs. I don’t care if this was an opinion piece. Dana Milbank should be ashamed for encouraging such behavior, and then for doubling down on his encouragement. Like Mitt Romney, “no apologies”, it seems.

Paul Ryan also lied in his debate with Joe Biden. Ryan has a habit of disavowing the truth. The moniker “Lyin’ Ryan” didn’t come from nowhere.

Yes, I’ve been picking on Romney and Ryan. I’m putting them under the microscope because they represent very vivid and pretty indisputable examples. This is not a purely partisan issue, and I don’t seek to be discredited by acting as if it is. Lying, no matter what person, party, or persuasion, is not acceptable. It is not how you win debates, and it shouldn’t be how you win votes.

Aren’t the candidates supposed to love and laud “the American people”? To politicians everywhere: what a tremendous slap in the face to the citizens you expect to vote for you. You’re supposed to be a public servant.

To be completely clear about why such lying is problematic at best and morally bankrupt at worst, I will list five reasons why the electorate should not passively accept those who seek to lead us deceiving us.

1. An “anything goes” downward spiral: The first excuse given by anyone seeking to apologize for a politician’s lies are “but the other side does it!”, as if this excuse somehow absolves their candidate of responsibility for wrongdoing. If evasive tactics haven’t worked (further compounding the lie into an often unmanageable, tangled web of more and more lies), and the candidate is stuck with “blueberry pie on [his or her] face”, as Al Sharpton likes to say, then the act of lying is used as a defense mechanism. We, the voters, are reminded that our candidate has to “fight back” against the barrage of lies being told about him or her by his or her opponent. We are to believe that every race is an arms race and that each campaign degenerates into a prisoner’s dilemma. Of course, it would be nice if the candidates each just highlighted their own records and didn’t have to lie, but unfortunately, once the “other side” does it, “our side” has no choice. We are made to believe that the only thing that can neutralize lying is more lying, whether or not the “other side” even lied in the first place. There is so much deliberate fabrication and spin, especially by outside groups (yes, I’m calling you out, Frank Luntz and Karl Rove), that it seems chaos is created intentionally to justify further lying. At least in the Cold War, the idea of mutually assured destruction prevented each side from nuking the other because everyone realized it was in their best interest not to bring us all down. Politicians and their enablers would do well to learn a lesson from history.

2. The No Responsibility Ethic: If a politician is encouraged to lie (and takes the bait), in a debate, let’s say, then we can be assured that person has little in the way of scruples. This person is unlikely to take responsibility for lying, or for any of the consequences of his or her misinformation or disinformation. The candidate has a reputation to uphold! How dare you question his or her character? Do you really want someone in office, representing you, who does not take responsibility for his or her actions? The rest of the country is constantly reminded of the fact that we are supposed to take “responsibility for our lives” (here’s looking at you, Mitt Romney; yet, it’s more than alright for Romney to lie?)—I sense a disconnect here.

3. Unethical Conduct and the Trust Factor: This is very clear cut. Lying is unethical. Most people would agree on this point. Ask any focus group or perform any poll, and I can almost guarantee you that when presented with the idea of outright lying, this practice would be nearly universally panned by almost any panel. This idea cuts at the heart of our instinctive drive to trust others who have proven they are trustworthy. If someone will lie to you, how can you trust him or her? And should you trust him or her? Pick any point in human history. One person’s lie could have led to an early human version of you being eaten by a wild animal, or a seventeenth century version of you being burned at the stake. Trust is crucial to survival. Trust is earned and can be broken. Betrayal is devastating, even if it doesn’t result in one’s immediate demise. That is why we put such a premium on it. If someone betrays you, especially repeatedly, how can you trust this person?

4. Abuse of Power and a Sense of Elite Entitlement: We hear a lot about the divisiveness of politics, about how it’s wrong to separate people. From accusations of “class warfare” to charges of exclusion, we like to pretend America is one big, happy family, and that “united we stand; divided we fall” is an ethic to live by—until it’s not. This is only a categorical imperative for the lowly, the lesser. If politicians are allowed to lie, it sends the message that the rest of society is somehow not entitled to the same privilege, that an exception is made for the politician. Somehow, the view has been turned upside down. Instead of those who tell the truth being placed above those who lie, lying engenders a dividing line. Those who can lie with relative impunity live in the VIP room of society. They end up thinking they are allowed to act in a way contrary to the behavior expected of the general population, and how is this normally abhorrent behavior justified? Well, they must be special, or their circumstances are special. Either way, they are patricians to the rest of the American plebeians. They—the politicians—are the elite who must pay lip service to everyone else. This leads to the cordoning off of certain sections of society, like politicians, who are allowed to act in a way normally viewed as unbecoming for the rest of us. It leads to politicians thinking they are special, therefore, further separating themselves from being “one of the people”. One cannot expect to be accurately represented by such a person.

5. It’s Disingenuous: What’s real?: This is an important point: I’m not saying all politicians lie, and I’m not saying they do it all the time. If it happens even once in a presidential debate, however, that is one time too many. It’s unbelievable to me that there actually exists an adviser to the Romney campaign who claims that the campaign is not beholden to fact checkers. This statement is viewed by some as heroic. Really? Facts don’t matter? What else do we have? Suddenly, a campaign can create its own reality. Well, not only is that unfair, and the other candidates do not even stand a chance if fictional versions of themselves are presented to the public, but it’s pretty irrational and scary, not to mention incredibly arrogant. Facts do matter. Unbiased data is essential. Voters have the right to make informed decisions based on real evidence. No one should be allowed to cheat.

When you watch the debate tomorrow night, judge the candidate’s integrity. This is important. You deserve to be told the truth, and not to be manipulated. Demand a basic level of decency and honesty from politicians. Your vote matters. They are there to serve you, and lying about their records or their opponents in an effort to get ahead or pull one over on voters should be a disqualifier. Think about it: it would be in almost any other position or area of life. Those who make the climate comfortable for liars are equally responsible. Honesty and integrity are basic tenets. Telling the truth is the least people can do.

In the days following last week’s Democratic National Convention, there’s been a lot of buzz about the “significant” bounce President Obama received nationally. A litany of polls point to the fact that both the president and Democrats alike have higher favorability ratings and are seen as more trustworthy and relatable on key issues to voters—as compared to Mitt Romney and Republicans. Pollsters and pundits like to attribute this bounce to the “nearly flawless” Convention the Democrats put on. For all the talk of the “enthusiasm gap” among Democrats leading up to the Convention, it seemed the Republicans–with their bland speakers, non-detail specific plans, and most searing, visually, the lackluster crowd—comprised the party with the “enthusiasm gap”. The contrasts between the rousing call to action speeches, actual facts (which former present and all-around charmer Bill Clinton called “arithmetic”), and the diverse and engaged crowd, as compared to the Republican National Convention, couldn’t be starker.

Except that the Democratic National Convention wasn’t nearly flawless. Venue changes and speech scheduling issues aside, the “God and Jerusalem” issue of last Wednesday night is one that I would call a major flaw. Of course Democrats want to brush over it. One need only watch an obviously annoyed Nancy Pelosi repeatedly explain “it’s over” when asked about the event to know Democrats don’t want to talk about it. I bring this up not to taint the Democrats or the Convention. I want nothing more than for Barack Obama to beat Mitt Romney on November 6th. This event should not be swept under the rug, though. I want to feel proud of my party and I don’t want to think that it stands for fundamental unfairness and oligarchy, which is the conclusion I’ve drawn from the votes I saw and the (sham) presentation at the Convention regarding proposed changes to the platform. Besides the fact that I fundamentally disagree with the idea of including mentions of God in an American political party platform and I think the idea of declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel is an abhorrent display of pandering at best and possible racism at worst, the fact that DNC organizers completely ignored the will of the people is irrefutably shameful and unacceptable. We should all be up in arms about the fact that this can happen in the United States—and on TV, no less!

Some background first:

The original Democratic Party platform contained no mention of the word “God”, and it did not include the idea that Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel. There were some murmurs about the alleged God snubbing part. I was very excited about this part at the time. I felt like, perhaps, real progress had been made. Perhaps the self-professed “party of inclusion” had finally made an effort to include atheists like me. After all, Obama was the first president to mention “non-believers” in his Inaugural Address. That freezing January day on the National Mall, I was there, and I felt hope. For the first time, I really felt included. This was not to be, however. It was reported that President Obama himself was outraged at the exclusion of God in the party platform and personally—and firmly—requested that it be included. Including the term “God” in the party platform is not just an affront to me—or to atheists. It is often argued that “God” is a generic term; unlike Jesus, it doesn’t denote any specific religion. Rather, it is argued, God is a stand in for a kind of civic religion, an American spirituality. In short, however, it is a belief in some sort of “higher power”, some sort of vague “spirituality”. Even if we were to accept this idea, there are plenty of religious people who don’t believe in the concept of one god, or even the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God referred to in speech after speech by speakers at the DNC, and certainly the one referred to in the revised platform. Sure, this concept of a monotheistic God more or less covers the big three: Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The concept of this specific God does, however, leave atheists, agnostics, secularists, polytheists, and others, out in the cold.

The original Democratic Party platform also did not contain the explicit statement of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. (more on that in a minute)

At the opening of the Convention on Day 2 (or Wednesday, September 5th), some top Democrats seemed to have changed their minds about the content of their party’s platform. Perhaps they bowed to pressure (especially by Fox News, who, I’m sure, sought to discredit Democrats in any way they could), or they suddenly became alerted to their now-unacceptable omissions. Whatever the case, a voice vote was held. Former governor of Ohio and head of the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee, Ted Strickland, was introduced on stage by the Democratic National Committee Chairman (and current governor of Los Angeles) Antonio Villaraigosa. After Strickland talked about how he was an ordained minister and God’s very important to him and to the “American narrative” and how Jerusalem is, of course, the capital of Israel (though he didn’t mention anything about Israelis, Palestinians, or any reason that such a statement should be so important), Villaraigosa put the platform changes up to a vote from those in the audience. After the first vote, the “nays” seemed equal to the “yeas”. Villaraigosa tried again. The same thing happened, this time with the “nays” being shouted even louder. After hesitation and momentary panic—and after a woman on the side of the stage who we can only assume was another Party official said, “I think we’re just gonna have to let them do what they wanna do”—Villaraigosa tried one last time—with (surprise, surprise!) the same result. He then decided that, in his opinion, “two-thirds of the crowd voted in the affirmative”, and the changes were adopted. After this, very audible booing occurred from the audience. This, of course, was ignored, and what was done was done. Music was played in an attempt to drown out the prolonged booing from the audience, and the next speaker was rushed out in an effort to make a seamless transition into the rest of the Convention.

What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the United States? Many things, each party would have you believe, chief among them, each party’s differing views on how to move the country forward. This basically amounts to ideological differences in the role, scope, and aims of the federal government, led by either the overwhelming guiding principle of self reliance (Republicans) or the communitarian “we’re stronger together and all help one another” spirit of cooperation (Democrats). But, of course, we are all Americans, and each party will say that we are all united by basic American principles. These principles include that nebulous, but all important concept of “freedom” and that we are united by the shared belief and understanding of inalienable truths–one of those being the near sycophantic undying support for Israel. And, oh, by the way, if you even dare question Israel’s motives or say one critical word about Romney BFF “Bibi” Netanyahu, then you are anti-semitic (never mind the fact that the Semites include Palestinians as well as the Jews of the region), and are dishonoring the victims of the Holocaust. You will be cast out into the political hinterlands like one Jimmy Carter, never mind the fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, but so did another US president, Barack Obama. So many similarities! No wonder our poor president felt such pressure to cave. The Republicans might try to weaken him. …Except that Republicans have already questioned Obama’s commitment to Israel (in detestable terms), and will continue to do so. The Romney campaign has blatantly told the public it’s not above lying (the famous phrase by Romney’s campaign that it “will not be beholden to fact checkers”), and campaign operatives know that vitriolic rhetoric plays well with racist, ignorant members of the Republican base.

This is part of what I wrote immediately after the incident at the Convention last Wednesday:

Obama wanted control of the message. Perhaps this will all blow over in the next few days, overcome by a tsunami of enthusiasm following the president’s acceptance speech tonight. I’m sure the Obama campaign staff and the DNC inner circle are betting on the fact that this unfortunate incident will be forgotten as Democrats indulge in the inspiring, empowering speeches of Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Julian Castro, Ted Strickland…except that Ted Strickland was the person who came out on stage, claiming his history as an ordained Methodist minister and pressing for changes to the Democratic platform. He is the face that stared at the panicked Antonio Villaraigosa as Villaraigosa asked the DNC delegation three times if it would accept the changes to the platform. When he confirmed changes, boos rang out. The admiration and affinity I had acquired for Ted Strickland, after hearing his fantastic speech the night before, had evaporated in less than 24 hours. It was replaced by feelings of anger and betrayal. I wonder if this is what Tea Partiers feel like when they claim tyranny of the government. I waited to write this until I had time to let events settle in, and I can’t see it as anything but tyranny. I know I sound hyperbolic, but how else would these actions be explained?

Religion should be separate from politics, and the United States should not be as involved in Israeli policy. What happened to “freedom” (of thought, dissent, and self determination)?

Everyone is entitled to his or her views. THAT is precisely the point I’m trying to make. The part about God and the part about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel were not originally in the Democratic platform. While I believe these things should have no place in the platform, it’s not up to me–or Strickland or Villaraigosa or Obama–hence, the vote.

These people, who seemed to amass more than one-third of the audience so much so that Villaraigosa asked three times, freaked out, and rammed it through, amidst very audible boos, had a right to be heard, and to be taken seriously. People are right to feel outraged and betrayed.

It is a party convention. The platform must be affirmed and adopted by those delegates in attendance. In this case, a two-thirds majority was necessary, and that number didn’t seem to approve of these proposals being added.

The adoption of the changes to the platform was pre-scripted and passed despite a great amount of obvious objection. Those who take issue with the platform changes, and the way in which they were adopted have no recourse for complaint. These people, the delegates, are representatives of American citizens, and are our frontline of so-called democracy. They are the representatives of our “representative republic”. If their voices are silenced or ignored, what other conclusion is there to draw than the fact that the people don’t matter to the party, that the many at the bottom matter little to those at the top? The voice of the people was overridden. It never mattered in the first place.

This is all the more ironic since the Democratic Party points to the undemocratic practices of its counterpart the Republican Party in silencing people by making it increasingly difficult for them to vote. For all of the talk of people-powered change and the progressivism of the Democratic Party during the convention, when the extension of such ideals was exercised, it meant nothing.

I’m more than disappointed. I’m angry, and I feel disillusioned and betrayed. I feel stung by a party that wants my vote, by a party that will appeal to me as a woman, as a young person, as a 99 percenter, as any number of labels, but that takes away from me the definition of the most fundamental identity of all—that of an American.

Rarely do Republicans agree with Democrats on anything–not even the American Jobs Act–so bipartisanship on any issue is (unfortunately) a big deal. That bipartisanship came not in the form of legislation, but in calling for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to release an extensive record of his tax returns.

While Romney has released a year and a half worth of returns, and has done the bare minimum required (as is the Romney way), the public is still not satisfied. As Jon Stewart so aptly put, Romney only released returns from “when he was running for president” in the 2012 election (meaning that he was aware that he was under special scrutiny and may have sanitized certain things for public consumption). Every day Romney refuses to release more tax returns, the political fallout increases. On yesterday’s “Good Morning America”, Ann Romney said, “We’ve given you people all you need to know”, sparking outrage over her use of “you people”, basically because she condescendingly accused her fellow Americans of being peons far below the aristocratic–and exceptional–Romneys. This “special treatment” ethic that the Romneys seem to believe they deserve is the biggest problem with the whole taxgate issue.

Unlike pundits who speculate that Romney must be hiding something terrible, I seriously doubt there is anything illegal in Mitt Romney’s tax records. The problem is that the system allows for the kind of “institutional advantages” that make possible vast economic inequality in America. Romney just reaps the benefits.

Mitt Romney has a myriad of personality flaws. There are reasons he seems out of touch and like he’s keeping others at arm’s length. He’s not forthcoming. He’s always vague. He’s not transparent. He lacks ideological convictions. In short, he’s not trustworthy. And he has money in overseas accounts. It’s not a good combination.

The unscripted Ann Romney moment served as a lightning rod because it so clearly epitomizes people’s fears about the Romneys and their relation to the majority of the country. Can you see Michelle Obama saying “you people”? The opposition would be on her SO FAST. For that matter, can you imagine Barack Obama not releasing his tax returns? (And he doesn’t even have his father’s vaunted example to live up to.) Certain Republicans, advanced by their trustworthy mouthpiece Fox News, have called for the president’s sealed documents, including high school and college transcripts. They do this to create a distraction, as if there is some false equivalency. There’s not.

Mitt and Ann, you’re not special. It’s beyond insulting that you think you are. Running for president is the great equalizer, and no one is spared the scrutiny–especially not those whose extreme wealth and secrecy have been used to insulate and separate themselves all their lives from the citizenry they are running to serve.

On Thursday, June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA for short). In the ruling of a lifetime (really, how often do non-constitutional scholars get this excited about anything involving the Supreme Court?), the Court upheld the entire law as constitutional, aka, legal. The details were very exciting, but I won’t get into them here. That’s not what this post is about.

This post is about the fact that certain segments of society have taken up the most selfish, bigoted, irresponsible, opportunistic, and ignorant views on this subject that it makes me embarrassed to call them fellow citizens. It is one thing to disagree with the nuances of the law. I certainly don’t think the law is perfect as is. I would even understand if people openly stated that they don’t care about other people and don’t want to pay for them. At least they’re being honest. It’s quite another to brandish your argument in fancy words and pretend you’re all about cost control, “freedom”, and “judicial restraint”. While I’m probably preaching to the choir, and it’s not like my blog post will reach Cantor and Co., I feel compelled to spell out two arguments for the necessity of health reform.

The moral argument: You’ve heard the statistics. 50 million people are uninsured in America. That’s nearly 1 in 6. Those who are insured may be underinsured, or may take a job or remain at a job because they need the healthcare provided by their employer. Pre-“Obamacare”: Lifetime caps on coverage were instituted, making it impossible for many people to pay their medical bills, medicines were more expensive, contraception cost more money, those with preexisting conditions such as breast cancer (yes, really) were routinely denied coverage altogether, and there were gaping holes in insurance coverage for young adults and rising costs for senior citizens. Nearly 50,000 people a year die because they don’t have health insurance. This is a staggering number and should be unacceptable to any human being. The United States, an industrialized country, and the wealthiest country in the world by far, has no excuse. Politicians love to brag about how the American medical system has the finest doctors and the best technology in the world. Yet, we charge people exorbitant amounts at the emergency room, and let tens of thousands die per year. It’s often said that reason is the better tack to take in an argument as opposed to emotion. In this case, there’s no way to leave emotion out of it. Sickness and suffering is an emotional thing—especially if much of this suffering can be alleviated, and care can be provided for all.

The economic argument: For those who don’t care about the morality of the matter—or who have compassion, but “don’t think we can afford” to overhaul the healthcare system right now—there is a very strong economic argument to be made. Currently, healthcare accounts for 18% of the country’s GDP. To put that number in perspective, the United States government spent approximately 1% of GDP on the space program at the height of the Cold War, and that was a lot of money. This 18% is not stagnant, either. When people say that healthcare costs are “spiraling out of control”, and need to be contained, they mean it. Healthcare will eat up more and more of the budget, and soon, we won’t be able to pay for anything else. This is not meant as a scare tactic, and it’s not wild speculation. It’s the truth. Insuring more people, providing preventative care, preempting emergency room visits (the only way some people get treated), neutralizing risk, and creating a climate of stability will bring the costs down significantly. Sure, it will take a few years, but inaction is worse. If the U.S. had taken significant action on climate change decades ago…but I digress. Doctors, hospitals, patients, and healthcare experts all agree that the fiscally responsible thing to do is to go the way of the ACA.

The free rider problem: This is about who we are, as Americans, as a society. Like it or not, we do live in a society, and this concept carries with it certain responsibilities. Given the choice, individuals will act in self interest, aka, not take care of someone else. People will also not pay for things they don’t want or don’t see a need for—or, especially, if they feel the “intrusive” government is “shoving it down their throats”. Unless that something is on an infomercial…maybe the government should’ve tried to selling healthcare reform on TV at 3 in the morning. The point is, people need to be mandated to buy insurance to neutralize risk and to control costs for everyone. There needs to be a penalty for noncompliance to ensure people participate and that the program is successful. Also, it’s not as if people never get sick or hurt or old. It’s really an investment. Many of the people who don’t want to buy health insurance are the people who end up needing it the most. Those who can’t afford it will be aided. We live in a society in which cooperation is key. No one lives in a vacuum and became successful or self sufficient by himself or herself. A real patriot would want to do what’s best for the people in his or her country. Any person who wants to live in a successful society—really just an outgrowth of the idea of favorable environment—should understand and internalize this fact. We need to work together in a society, and sorry, Ron Paul, libertarian tendencies of hoping the “members of a church” will help someone in their community who is sick is unrealistic, unpredictable, and unsustainable.

In the 2 years and 3 months since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed, it seems all Republicans have been doing is mounting a relentless P.R. campaign against the “monstrosity” they call “Obamacare”. When the scare tactics of alleged “death panels” didn’t catch on much beyond Tea Party circles, Republicans aimed for greater legitimacy by claiming that the ACA was unconstitutional. Eventually 26 states advanced this charge, and the healthcare law made it before the Supreme Court. In reality, behind the scenes much debate was going on within the Republican Party. In the last few months, talking points started to shift from “gutting the whole thing” to “of course, we’d keep the most popular parts”. While “replace and replace” became the de facto sound bite for any politician with an “R” attached to his or her name, the issue of what to replace their dreaded Obamacare with became more real. The sobering reality, once the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the constitutionality of the law in March, was that the Republicans must provide a viable alternative to the “2,700 page” legislation they had worked so tirelessly to strike down.

Herein lies the issue. As many have observed, prominent Republicans seemed to want to keep many parts of the law that proved popular. Their main opposition (beyond some of the issues with women’s health coverage and other so-called “liberal” provisions) was to the individual mandate part of the law. They didn’t like the loss of freedom imposed by a mandate forcing people to pay for healthcare. Their claims about the mandate, like all of their other claims about the law, were, of course, greatly exaggerated and distorted. Hyperbolic or not, Republicans didn’t like the idea of a penalty and infringement on individuals’ all-important “liberty”.

Cue the free rider problem. Also, isn’t denying people healthcare coverage an infringement of their liberty? “Life” comes before “liberty” in the Declaration of Independence. Without life, the pursuit of liberty and happiness become nonexistent. Besides, a lot of people are stupid. That’s not very diplomatic, but it’s true. When they need it, people want government to step in and protect them from their mistakes or when they’re at their most vulnerable—then it’s ok, apparently. In addition, people’s “liberty” often adversely affects other people, and everyone would admit that security (in this case, harm minimization) is the government’s role.

You would think that Republicans would be satisfied with the law because it helps big business. Insurance companies, overall, end up the big winners. The ACA is nowhere near nationalized or universal healthcare. That “Romneycare” was the blueprint for “Obamacare” need not be mentioned except to draw attention to the humor and irony involved in the opposition presidential candidate’s contortions around such a personally damaging issue. Hypocrisy at its finest. In fact, Romney, too, notably changed his tune in his speech following the Supreme Court decision which upheld the ACA in its entirety. Romney wants to keep certain provisions in place such as keeping kids on their parents’ insurance until they’re 26, not denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, and maintaining competition between plans. Some Republican politicians have gone even further to endorse the provision of stopping lifetime caps on care. How to pay for all of this, though, without the mandate? The lynchpin of the law, much like the “automatic trigger” of sequestration enacted after the debt ceiling debates, was put in place to hold people accountable. Otherwise, they will “kick the cab down the road” forever and people will not take responsibility, not individually, and certainly not for the wellbeing of society. The conservatives, who always stress sustainability, have spit in the face of a plan whose central tenet–the individual mandate–they, themselves, designed.

Do they want freedom or security (read: liberty or sustainability)? President Obama’s Democratically passed law provides some measure of both. It aims to address spiraling healthcare costs and provides much choice and increased coverage for millions of people. Almost everyone in the United States is impacted by this law. It is by no means perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction, and if Republicans are still so up in arms about it–and not just because they’re sore losers, hate Obama, aren’t too fond of women, prefer the status quo, and will cling to power at all costs–then it’s a positive sign.

There’s a huge problem when a candidate for President of the United States does not run on his previous job experience. Case in point: Mitt Romney. It is no secret that Romney has shied away from reminding voters of his experience as Governor of Massachusetts. Oh, but he’s done other things that are more relevant to the current state of affairs? He has instead focused his campaign squarely on his experience as a “job creator” because the ailing economy is the prevailing issue in this election? Even if I were to grant him the idea that he’s playing to his strengths (which he’s not), the problem remains that Romney is decidedly running away from campaigning on the only elected office he ever held.

Like it or not, Romney’s governorship is his only record of elected public service. (No, running the Olympics–singlehandedly, as he’d like us to believe–doesn’t count, sorry.) His tenure as Massachusetts Governor is his only political experience. For those who gripe about Obama’s “lack of experience” going into the Presidency, take a look at Romney. Seriously.

One can’t really blame Romney from not wanting to highlight his Massachusetts experience. The most glaring reason that pundits love to point to is “Romneycare”, aka the Massachusetts Health Plan, aka the so-called “blueprint” for “Obamacare”. But wait…there’s more. Massachusetts was 47th out of 50 in a list of states for job creation during Romney’s time as Governor. In fact, the state was 37th in the nation when Romney became Governor, and moved down 10 slots when he left. This certainly runs counter to the “job creation” ethic he’s created for his campaign. There was no recession when he was Governor of Massachusetts. No statewide natural disaster occurred. What could have happened? Oh, right. Mitt Romney CUT jobs. Oops.

The previous point is a particularly important one. Romney bills himself as a “job creator”. His Massachusetts record tells a different story. Perhaps he should not be held accountable for the dismal job numbers in his state. Perhaps he doesn’t have very much control over actual job creation as a governor. The same must be applied to President Obama, then. Romney is unwilling to grant the president the same luxury. Besides, direct actions by Romney impacted the number of jobs created in his state.

Romney is also running on the platform that he doesn’t discriminate against women or LGBT people. A quick look at the bills he passed against protections for both communities and the funding cuts for domestic violence programs for women tells a different story. Oops again.

Moving beyond the issues, there’s a much more fundamental issue. Residents of Massachusetts don’t like him. Yes, it’s a blue state. Maybe he’s fighting an uphill battle. Too bad not even Republicans tend to view his Governorship favorably.

Lest we credit Romney for acting strategically in an important political race, I must once again be the bearer of bad news. Romney has not been elected by the public for any other position IN HIS LIFE. Even if his record at Bain Capital was all sunshine and rainbows (which, again, it’s not), would you really want to elect a Herman Cain type to be President of the United States? Yes, we all agree Mr. 999 has been a successful businessman–but he is a joke as president. What’s Romney’s advantage? That he has political experience (however slight) and that maybe he can pronounce the word “Uzbekistan”. Maybe. It’s not a tax haven, so who knows?

The point is that Mitt Romney’s governorship is the only yardstick with which we, the American people, have to measure him politically. He can’t run from his record. He has definitely tried (shredding records as he was leaving office, dodging questions in interviews), but the fact remains. This period of his life as Governor of Massachusetts is important. Romney cannot just pretend this part of his career did not exist. It’s not as if it will just go away if he never talks about it. He is running for what is ostensibly the most powerful job in the world. His only quasi-comparable experience in governing was as Massachusetts Governor. As much as he may want to sanitize it, or leave entire parts out, Romney’s record—in its entirety—should be scrutinized.

The last few days have been abuzz with stories related to homosexuality, or as Bill Maher would put it, “it’s been a big week in gay”. Since every pundit is putting his or her spin on the most recent news–and it is a pivotal moment–I’d like to offer my analysis. To sum things up: Vice President Biden said in a televised interview that he fully supported same sex marriage, the media went crazy because President Obama had not shared that stance publicly, 3 days (and way too much media dithering later), Obama echoed Biden’s stance. A lot of people were excited (and some people used the issue to bolster socially conservative bona fides), but as we all know, since even important stories have shelf lives in the nanoseconds, a Romney story eclipsed the Obama story. In high school, Romney apparently held down a boy with the help of his friends, and forcibly cut his hair. This would be a horrible thing to do no matter what the circumstances, but the story takes on another dimension: the boy had dyed his hair blond, was presumed to be gay, and came out later in life. Whether Mitt Romney engaged in a hate crime (according to legal definitions) against John Lauber or not, he did bully a fellow student and human being. Some of the media coverage and the response to this story has been almost as upsetting as the story itself. I’ll get to that.

Let’s begin with Joe Biden’s “gaffe”. Why is it a gaffe? Because he was honest and came out ahead of the president? Biden spoke his mind. He was not offensive. It’s not even like he threw a whole party or something. He answered an interview question honestly, didn’t dodge it like many other politicians would have (and will continue to do), and demonstrated the courage of his conviction.

If his statement “made Obama look bad”, the only person Obama or his staff can really blame is the president himself. Obama certainly could have come out fully and forcefully for same sex marriage sooner, especially if, as he claims, he had reached this conclusion before Biden’s public moment. Attaching the term “gaffe” to every phrase that comes out of Joe Biden’s mouth doesn’t work. If Biden pushed Obama–even inadvertently–good. Obama has been conciliatory, overly compromising, and too passive on a number of issues: climate change, the debt negotiations, supporting 10-1 spending cuts to tax increases in an effort to appease Republicans, passing another round of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, health care reform, banking reform, anyone?

It’s been said that Obama staffers are upset because Obama had a huge rollout planned. K, well, you snooze, you lose. A bigger issue, though: way to play politics with people’s lives. Oh, the administration was waiting for an opportune moment? Well, waiting until an election year at all is probably not the most opportune moment–unless they’re blatantly pandering.

Oh, well. Obama has a very strong record on LGBT rights including not supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, strengthening rights for domestic partners and protections for the LGBT community, spearheading the effort and corralling the necessary votes to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act, and more. Obama declared his support for same sex marriage in an interview, and while lingering questions remain about political pressure and whether his language was “strong enough”, it was a monumental civil rights moment. The first sitting president in history used his bully pulpit to influence the country. All’s well that ends well, right? Not quite.

The story about Mitt Romney and John Lauber came to light around the same time. 5 witnesses testified to The Washington Post that they were deeply ashamed of the incident, regretted it, and directly fingered Romney as the ringleader. They claimed that Lauber screamed and cried as he was immobilized. In the words of one witness, he “was terrified” and “it was an assault”. Romney claims to not remember the incident and offered the same asshole not-apology apology that people offer when they are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions or when they think the accuser is just too sensitive, i.e., the one with the problem. He chuckled, claimed he played pranks and engaged in “youthful hijinks”, and that if he did offensive things, he’s sorry if people interpreted them that way. He also said this was 48 years ago, and let’s focus on the economy, pretty please, because as even Republican strategists have claimed, keeping the focus solely on the economy is the only way he has a shot at winning.

I received an email from moveon.org that aimed to capitalize on the Romney incident. The language used absolutely exploited John Lauber in order to raise money for Democrats. It shifted the focus from the bullying incident to making fun of Romney (because an eye for an eye is always the way to go), and it used the Lauber story as a draw. It glossed over why the situation was terrible, and instead pushed shameless partisan self-promotion. The email was entitled “Dark Incident”. This email was a dark incident. Way to be unprofessional. The email sensationalized events and then brought in irrelevant information. The organization does not need to do that. The story speaks for itself. Way to stay classy, Move On.

To say society is in flux would be trite. Society is always in flux. We should all take a page from Vice President Biden’s book and take personal responsibility, while diplomatically stating our personal opinions. Shooting each other down and out-nastying each other just turns people off. The last thing we need is more disillusionment with the only system we have to protect us and to promote our rights as citizens. It’s easier to sit in the dark of the allegorical cave, and throw stones at each other, playing it safe. In the immortal words of Maurice Freehill, “Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark or the man afraid of the light?” And if politicians choose to invoke William Winthrop’s iconic “City Upon a Hill”, (which they are prone to do), then they should strive to live up to this ideal. We all should.

With all of the recent “War on Women” rhetoric, I’d like to sound off on this subject. “Polls show Obama ahead with women by 19 points”. “Romney is trailing with female voters”. “Women have historically voted more for Democrats”. “The real way to appeal to female voters is…” Stop. Women are human beings. Depersonalizing the existence of more than half of the population is a sure way to alienate a group so seemingly important to politicians. You’d think their strategists would realize this.

I’m not part of a monolithic voting bloc, and I’m not an interest group. President Obama made this very “not an interest group” point at his recent summit on American women and girls. Sure, he was pandering, but at least he actually has such a summit. This was not the first time the summit convened. It is not merely an election year tactic.

Yes, I’m voting for President Barack Obama. I’m sincerely hoping he gets reelected—not because I think of myself as a female voter, and women’s issues are at the top of the list for me. Quite the contrary. I wouldn’t have even been thinking about so called “women’s issues” very much had it not been for the recent onslaught against women’s rights. I’m talking beyond issues of birth control, which, itself, is an unbelievably backward thing to even be bringing up this campaign cycle. I’m talking about things such as fair pay for women, protection of health benefits, a sense of self worth and privacy, dignity, and pride in oneself.

President Obama is taking advantage of the current political climate in which a great deal of Republicans have been toxic to women. I’m aware that he hopes to score political points, but I’m not terribly cynical as I accept the fact that such political point scoring on his part might be necessary in order to get reelected. If he’s talking about actual accomplishments—concrete steps toward advancing and protecting the rights of women—I’m ok with the president reminding the public, and garnering the recognition.

The president has lauded the fact that the first bill he signed into law after being elected was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. When I heard about this initially, at the beginning of Obama’s first term, I was extremely surprised that such an act was not already in place. The president’s signing of this bill, the contents of which protect a woman seeking retribution for unfair pay even after her employer has paid her less than her male colleagues for years, is a big deal. Contrast this with the recent undoing of Wisconsin’s fair pay law by Governor Walk All Over Workers (Governor Walker). Walker has a history of abusing his power and fervently attacking workers and unions in the short time he has been governor. Now that he is set to be recalled, he has kicked into overdrive, much like the especially active 111th Congress in late 2010 during the “lame duck” session. The “quiet” action he took on women’s pay is one of several bills the governor has recently passed in such a fashion. The New York Daily News elaborates:“The wage bill was one of several items Walker, a controversial union-defying GOPer, signed off on this month. Other pieces of legislation included barring abortion coverage through health insurance exchanges, mandating doctors to consult privately with women seeking abortions, and requiring sex ed teachers to stress abstinence.”

Add to this the recent comments by Wisconsin State Senator Glenn Grothman, claiming that women don’t need to be paid equally to men and that more money was more important to a man because his ego is very important and he might want to be the breadwinner. In a recent article, The newspaper explains, “Under the old law, employees who win discrimination lawsuits can collect between $50,000 and $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The GOP bill bars anyone from collecting such funds in employment discrimination suits.

Democrats argue the bill negatively affects women who suffer discrimination in the workplace.

According to the recent Shriver Report, women are the primary or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of American families — but continue to make 23 cents less than men for every dollar earned.”

Grothman thinks “workplace bias” is bullshit. Not only is this terribly ignorant and out of step with modernity; it is unbelievably offensive.

Speaking of the shockingly offensive, the Violence Against Women Act is up for a reauthorization vote in Congress. This should be a no-brainer. It should not be a partisan vote, and it hasn’t been a partisan vote in the past. It is worth noting that Vice President Biden is responsible for the original Violence Against Women Act. This particular piece of legislation is facing significant opposition for the first time. Whether this is some subtle way of trying to score points against the president’s reelection bid (because it is Biden’s legislation) at the expense of women or for some other nefarious reason, it is a disgusting display of disregard for their fellow human beings. The Violence Against Women Act protects women in particularly vulnerable positions, and for a party that claims to be so chivalrous and value “the fairer sex”, you’d think Republicans would do all that’s in their power to reauthorize such a bill.

According to an article in The Huffington Post, “Since the Violence Against Women Act was first enacted in 1994, reporting of domestic violence has increased by as much as 51 percent. The legislation was aimed at improving the response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Yet according to national statistics, more than three women are, on average, murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day.”

Terrible, right? Strengthening protections for women through a reauthorization of this bill should be a bipartisan effort, right? Wrong. The article goes on to say “Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and a few conservative organizations, object not to the act as a whole, but to new protections for LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse and the authority of Native American tribes to prosecute crimes.”

I could go on and on about Mitt Romney’s record on saying that poor women must have the “dignity of work”—meaning work outside the home—if they are to qualify for state aid, which is understandable, but less understandable when he and every other Republican, it seems, have advocated cutting childcare and education programs like Head Start. Most women do not have the luxury of raising children without working outside the home (unlike his wife, who has the “hardest job there is”, apparently), especially single mothers, and for the poorest women, outside work is increasingly difficult if they do not receive adequate government aid. The much-celebrated Paul Ryan budget plan deals a disproportionately heavy blow to women as well.

From frighteningly restrictive abortion laws (such as the recent law that says that life begins two weeks after a woman’s period), women’s basic rights to their own bodies and their ability to make decisions are being trampled in the name of some warped, overbearing ideology. President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is not aimed specifically toward women, but in many ways it advances women’s rights. Nothing in this bill, not even the apparently terrifying contraception language, is as overarching as many recently proposed (and passed) bills limiting women’s rights.

While I do not want to be defined by my gender, I feel a duty to inform those who share it a bit about what is happening in America. Every individual is free to vote for whomever she or he wants to, but I don’t understand how any woman who isn’t Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schlafly could ever—in good conscience—vote for a Republican this cycle. If someone finds me a Republican who bucks this trend, I would be very happy.

For all the talk of Republican missteps and unelectable candidates, Republicans do have something the Democrats don’t have—an incredible spin machine. Sometimes these euphemisms are highly effective, as in the case of “Obamacare”, a rebranding so succinct that even Democrats prefer to use it instead of the lumbering Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or “the president’s health care plan”. Other terms are so ambitious they fool only the most ignorant sycophants. Either way, the Frank Luntzes of the world have done much to shape this election season. I decided that in the spirit of (the first) Super Tuesday of 2012 that I would write out a guide to Republican spin this election season.

Guide to Republican Spin in the 2012 Presidential Campaign

Agenda: any conniving plan by any of the opposition, particularly the president; see “socialist agenda”

Anti-American: engaging in any task seen as antithetical to a very specific view of what is typically American, e.g., speaking out against unfettered capitalism, reaching out to other countries using diplomacy instead of bombs, asserting that less money should go to the Defense Department budget, wanting to address inequality by raising tax rates for the wealthiest citizens

Axis of Evil: former Speaker of the House and current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Barack Obama

Bipartisanship: a disgusting, anachronistic term for the bygone days of actually working with Democrats on legislation; see “compromise”

Bleeding Heart Liberal: a name given to any person who believes in compassion for his or her fellow citizens and recognizes that we all live in a society in which cooperation is key; also, someone who doesn’t believe in eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency or doesn’t hunt animals for fun

Border Security: one of the most important things that Republicans talk about, especially at debates in southern states when they are pandering to Sheriff Joe Arpaio types; a byword for keeping the Mexicans and other Latino and Latina undesirables out (even though the border with Canada is much larger and more porous and even though many immigrants initially enter the United States legally on planes and don’t cross the Mexican border)

China: evil, North Korea: eviler, Iran: evilest

Class Warfare: the realistic recognition that not everyone is a millionaire (or a billionaire) in America and not everyone is happy with the lack of social mobility and the growing inequality in America and the dissatisfaction at a dimming American dream; the 99% vs. 1% “Occupy” ethic; an attack on Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ (by way of Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s) assertion that “there are no “haves” or “have nots” in this country; just “haves” and soon to haves” ”; an empty statement thrown around by Republicans when they have no real economic plan

Climate Change: possibly the only accurate euphemism for what was overwhelmingly known as “global warming”, used by Frank Luntz to minimize the fear behind “global warming”; however, warming is not the only climactic effect; usually used in a derogatory sense by Republicans who either refuse to accept the reality of climate change or think it’s not anthropogenic in origin

Death Tax: a particularly morbid and inaccurate way to describe the Estate Tax

Democracy: for the few here in the United States (see “plutocracy”, “oligarchy”, and “crony capitalism”), but forced on those abroad–only those we deem worthy based on strategic interests, however; undercut by the enforcement of voter I.D. laws and redistricting/ “gerrymandering”

Education: the prevailing view is that the Department of Education should be abolished; creationism should be taught and environmentalism definitely shouldn’t be taught, yet every American is supposed to score higher on math and–yes, science, hahaha–than every student in the rest of the world

Energy: “Drill, baby, drill!” The only acceptable form of energy is oil. We must kill all the wildlife in places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve. (What is this concept of “conservation”? That’s for “pussies” like Teddy Roosevelt.) Alternative energy and renewable resources are for elitists like Al Gore who are destroying America. And even if the Keystone XL Pipeline is slated to actually kill jobs, who cares? It sounds good. Sometimes, coal and natural gas are touted too if the candidate is campaigning in a state like Pennsylvania or West Virginia or is Rick Santorum.

Entitlement Society: This term applies to anyone who uses any kind of paid government service from social security to unemployment to Medicare to Medicaid to Head Start (and others). But what about taking advantage of tax breaks, you ask? Silly, those don’t count.

Food Stamp President: Newt Gingrich’s pet name for President Obama so given because more Americans have relied on food stamps during the recession, which happened to take place during Barack Obama’s first term; contains racist and classist undertones

Illegal Alien: the name for those pesky immigrants who are taking all of our jobs

Ivory Tower Elites: yet another pejorative for anyone who has gone to college; often used to refer to President Obama by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, both of whom are highly educated and the archetype of Washington elites and the former, who was a college professor

Job Creators: anyone wealthy enough to be threatened by the reinstatement of taxes before the Bush tax cuts; wealthy Americans; The logic follows that of former President Ronald Reagan’s theory of “trickle down” economics, which never works; a bullshit title

Momentum: a make believe concept conjured up by political pundits who attempt to put the science in political science and also to fill in the endless hours spent on back to back coverage with no other real news thrown in

National Security: a concept that has been in existence since before the first city-states but that suddenly became disproportionately important under the Bush administration after September 11th; archetype of the bloated bureaucracy many Republicans love to rail about; a catch all excuse for any action in which ethics might be questioned, e.g., “(Insert issue here) is a matter of national security.”

Obamacare: a favorite term used by the Tea Party to encapsulate all that is wrong with President Obama; a derogatory name for the Health Care Reform Act which was signed into law by President Obama in 2009; synonymous with “government overreach” and “illegal mandates”; has somehow made the idea of providing more affordable health care to U.S. citizens on par with a crime against humanity; deemed a “monstrosity” by any Republican running for office who actually expects to win in the current political climate

Primary-palooza: I made this one up. It’s a term to describe a. the entire day or days leading up to a primary/primaries or a caucus/caucuses b. from about May or June 2011 until November 2012 (is the vast majority of all news shown and the major story talked about on nearly every news source)

“Pro-Life”: synonymous with “anti-abortion”; curious self-identifier for people who believe in the rights of fetuses, but not necessarily in preventative health care for children and adults, believe in the death penalty, believe in killing “our enemies” at any cost, and do not even consider the lives of animals, which may result in them engaging in such wonderful endeavors as shooting endangered wolf species from helicopters

Reagan Democrat: I’m guessing these are disaffected Democratic voters who voted for Ronald Reagan in either 1980 or 1984 or both? Do these people actually exist? Maybe they’re like unicorns. I’m guessing most of these Democrats would vote for Ron Paul, anyway, who really doesn’t claim a strong affiliation with Ronald Reagan at all.

“Real” America/Americans: Sarah Palin’s favorite phrase for far flung, sparsely populated areas of America like Wasilla, Alaska; an assertion that some places, especially such places as New York City, Chicago, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Vermont, Hawaii, and almost the entire East Coast, are where the fake (?) or lesser Americans live

References to San Francisco and that Gay Coddler “Princess Nancy” Pelosi: When a Republican wants to talk about destructive “liberalism”, he or she invokes the name of that hedonistic hell known as San Francisco. The Congresswoman for San Francisco happens to be Nancy Pelosi (or “Princess Nancy” as Herman Cain so lovingly called her)—double points.

Religious Freedom: a real thing, though, sadly not used properly; now used to prevent health coverage including contraception; often invoked by Santorum and Gingrich, who claim that Catholics have become an oppressed minority in the United States (never mind the tax-free status of the Church and the fact that Romney is the one who actually suffers from religious prejudice)

“Sanctity of Marriage”: no same sex couples because they are a threat to religious convictions/indoctrination about the holiness of matrimony between a man and a woman as their god intended

Sharia Law: Muslim religious law; Republicans are terrified that these laws will gain traction in the United States and usurp the Constitution

Slut: a woman; one of the names Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke that was not actually repudiated by any Republicans

Socialism: (comes in the varieties of European style, communism, Nazi [which really makes no sense], and Saul Alinksky-esque); a style of governing that recognizes the rights of not only those who own corporations or make millions of dollars off of investments and recognizes the existence of a thing called poverty

Swing State: This is used to refer to a state that does not necessarily vote for either Democrats or Republicans in a predictable pattern, not a red state or blue state, aka a “purple state” such as Ohio; now, seemingly every state

Tyranny: a hyperbolic term used to describe any governmental power whatsoever; no longer applicable if said Republican is in power

Voter I.D. Laws: ostensibly put in place to prevent “voter fraud” except that voter fraud is so incredibly rare that everyone knows this is a smokescreen intended to disenfranchise voters who vote overwhelmingly Democratic such as the disabled, the elderly, Hispanic voters, black voters, and young voters